- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Dark money
- Dark money ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a clear case of WP:NEOLOGISM, as it appears to meet nearly all of the criteria spelled out in that policy. The article is loaded with OR and is presently being used to legitimize insertion of the term into other articles in order to advance a position, much as WP:NEO warns. Recommend porting to Wikitionary. Roccodrift ( talk) 17:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - This is far more than just a neologism; it is a political financing concept that has come into mainstream use in the media. Books have been written about it; Google has indexed 546,000 occurrences of it. It has been used by Mother Jones [1], Fox News [2], Huffington Post [3], The Nation [4], Talking Points Memo [5], The Hill [6], San Diego Reader [7], Los Angeles Times [8], Washington Post [9], Salon [10], Bloomberg [11], NBC [12], and MSNBC [13] to name a few. No doubt that this article has some original research in it, but the concept itself is well documented in reliable sources. We could call the article Hidden election contributions, Political money laundering, Kochtopus funds, Secret union contributions or any number of other things, but WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE suggest that we should follow the common terminology that our sources use. - Mr X 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note That first ref, (the book) is does not use the term dark money. Nor does it define the term dark money. Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -
Mr
X 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note that this doesn't matter because the second, third and fourth books do, as do the sixth and so on. Let's not get hung up on an irrelevant detail. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Adequate coverage at major journalistic sources-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The term is now being used on an anti-bi-partisan basis. Hcobb ( talk) 18:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – The real problem with the article itself is its NPOV & OR nature. (Perhaps it can be cleaned up.) The next problem is broader. As it is a popular media buzz word (or slang), using the term with wikilinks & "scare quotes" portends even more NPOV abuse. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Send to Wikitionary As I understand WP:neologismSome neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. I read that to mean that the Salon/WaPo/NBC refs above do not resolve the neologism policy issue. Given that, I'd suggest a move. Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lets recall Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – It's strongly referenced. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Roccodrift is verifiably wrong: the term has been used for over 100 years, in numerous sources since, by many sides in the debate. The nominator appears to be a noobie who is unfamiliar with the broad reach of Wikipedia. Bearian ( talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Naturally, you're entitled to any opinion that suits you. But your rationale here is nonsense. Roccodrift ( talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- In Rocco's defense, he's probably not a noob. MilesMoney ( talk) 05:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Well sourced; objections are typical nonsense. — goethean 13:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Dark money
- Dark money ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a clear case of WP:NEOLOGISM, as it appears to meet nearly all of the criteria spelled out in that policy. The article is loaded with OR and is presently being used to legitimize insertion of the term into other articles in order to advance a position, much as WP:NEO warns. Recommend porting to Wikitionary. Roccodrift ( talk) 17:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - This is far more than just a neologism; it is a political financing concept that has come into mainstream use in the media. Books have been written about it; Google has indexed 546,000 occurrences of it. It has been used by Mother Jones [1], Fox News [2], Huffington Post [3], The Nation [4], Talking Points Memo [5], The Hill [6], San Diego Reader [7], Los Angeles Times [8], Washington Post [9], Salon [10], Bloomberg [11], NBC [12], and MSNBC [13] to name a few. No doubt that this article has some original research in it, but the concept itself is well documented in reliable sources. We could call the article Hidden election contributions, Political money laundering, Kochtopus funds, Secret union contributions or any number of other things, but WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE suggest that we should follow the common terminology that our sources use. - Mr X 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note That first ref, (the book) is does not use the term dark money. Nor does it define the term dark money. Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -
Mr
X 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note that this doesn't matter because the second, third and fourth books do, as do the sixth and so on. Let's not get hung up on an irrelevant detail. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Adequate coverage at major journalistic sources-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The term is now being used on an anti-bi-partisan basis. Hcobb ( talk) 18:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – The real problem with the article itself is its NPOV & OR nature. (Perhaps it can be cleaned up.) The next problem is broader. As it is a popular media buzz word (or slang), using the term with wikilinks & "scare quotes" portends even more NPOV abuse. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Send to Wikitionary As I understand WP:neologismSome neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. I read that to mean that the Salon/WaPo/NBC refs above do not resolve the neologism policy issue. Given that, I'd suggest a move. Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lets recall Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – It's strongly referenced. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Roccodrift is verifiably wrong: the term has been used for over 100 years, in numerous sources since, by many sides in the debate. The nominator appears to be a noobie who is unfamiliar with the broad reach of Wikipedia. Bearian ( talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Naturally, you're entitled to any opinion that suits you. But your rationale here is nonsense. Roccodrift ( talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- In Rocco's defense, he's probably not a noob. MilesMoney ( talk) 05:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Well sourced; objections are typical nonsense. — goethean 13:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.